Sam Davies

Setting our future direction

Since my last update, we have seen an unprecedented shift in the leadership of our country. We have gained both a new Prime Minister and a new monarch in just a couple of days, ushering in what seems likely to be a period of huge change.

Yet locally, things feel more stuck than ever.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership’s City Access proposals (see here, p.30, item 6) have finally been released. They recommend an expanded and heavily-subsidised regional bus network, funded by the introduction of a daily £5 charge on vehicle movement into, out of or within the city boundary (the ‘Sustainable Travel Zone’). The proposals have generated a predictably polarised response, copious evidence of which has spilled over onto social media platforms and the letters pages of local newspapers.

While supporters point to the improvements in transport efficiency and public health which could be achieved, many observers have been taken aback by the way the scheme has been designed to maximise revenue capture (in order to support the cost of the proposed bus network) as opposed to tackling the specific problems of congestion or pollution. Nearly 14,000 people have so far signed a petition citing a wide range of concerns, including both potential social/financial inequalities and the scheme’s practical operation.

Scope for debate

There is a defined process for how this will be taken forward. Having been presented to the GCP Joint Assembly on Thursday, the proposals will now be considered by the GCP Executive Board on 28 September. If they are approved, the GCP will launch another round of consultation on the scheme, during which members of the public will be invited to have their say. This will presumably cover key points such as the charge levied, the scheme boundaries, operating hours, eligibility for discounts, etc. The final scheme will then have to be signed off by the County Council, in its capacity as Highways Authority. This means there is still plenty of scope for debate around the substance of the proposal.

Several commentators have criticised the messaging and ‘framing’ by which it has been presented to the public. They note that, by allowing the £5 charge to be the main story, rather than the improved bus service (see for example the headline and emphasis in this article in the Cambridge Independent) the GCP has gifted momentum to any opponents of the scheme.

But that’s not what I want to get into here. What I still want to see is a discussion of the relationship between the need for this transport intervention and two decades of pro-growth planning decisions.

The GCP’s stated goal is a 10–15% reduction in traffic from 2011 levels.  However, as we know from the first release of the 2021 Census data earlier in the summer, the populations of the city and South Cambridgeshire have increased far more steeply than anticipated in the last decade, rising by 20,000 and 14,000 respectively. The upshot of this is that the population assumption to which the GCP had been working – a 338,000 population in ‘Greater Cambridge’ by 2031 – will be significantly exceeded, and the difficulty in achieving that target reduction in private vehicle journeys will rise accordingly.

The GCP originally described a threefold approach to minimising emissions (in order of magnitude/priority):

  • fewer journeys to be made
  • where journeys are made, for those to be by public or active transport
  • where that is not possible, for those journeys to be made by zero emissions vehicles.

Yet at a recent GCP briefing for councillors, when I asked what was being done to address the first objective (for example, promoting liveable neighbourhoods), I was told it had been dropped. It was deemed no longer achievable because of the scale of population growth and inward commuting to employment sites.

Let’s take one extremely important local example of how this then plays out.

A tucked-away surprise

In the same set of GCP Assembly papers containing the City Access proposals, you can also find a tucked-away update to its weighty Biomedical Campus Transport Needs Review published in 2019. This update now predicts “that even with delivery of the planned major interventions; Cambridge South Station, Cambridge South-East Transport scheme and Cambridge South West Travel Hub, an overall deficit in transport provision of around 4,600 trips in 2031 when compared to the highway trip reduction target.”

You may recall that the usage assumptions for Cambridge South and the CSET busway in the 2019 Review were all set higher than industry standards. Yet we are now told that – even with those inflated assumptions – growth at CBC will outstrip the capacity of all the expensive infrastructure which was supposedly going to ensure its expansion was ‘sustainable’.

And remember, that’s just the growth already approved in the period to 2031. It doesn’t begin to account for the next round of expansion which CBC is advocating should be included in the next Local Plan!

Counting the cost

In summary:

  • The City Council and South Cambs District Council are working together through the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service to draft the next Local Plan, which will reflect their continued commitment to an ”employment-led growth strategy’;
  • The GCP is a delivery body which receives investment from central government (a maximum of £500m over 15 years) to ‘unlock’ this employment and housing growth by delivering improvements in infrastructure;
  • However, the City Council retains only a tiny fraction of the additional business rates generated by economic growth, and new housing settlements actually increase financial pressures on local government for around 15 years after build-out …
  • … and in the area’s largest employment site, the GCP’s major infrastructure interventions are already predicted to be inadequate to the economic growth forecast to 2031, let alone beyond …
  • …and the GCP can’t afford to underwrite the cost of remodelling of the bus network from the money provided by central government, so it proposes to extract the necessary funds via the daily charge on vehicle movements.

This just doesn’t add up.

Cambridge is touted globally as an economic goldmine. The Biomedical Campus alone estimates that it contributes £2.2billion Gross Value Added a year to the UK economy. Yet we expect local people to accept being told that the negative externalities of this economic growth can only be remedied by levying a charge on driving within the city boundary? A blanket charge levied on both winners and losers from that growth?

I would suggest that forthcoming debate about the City Access proposal is really just a specific and limited proxy for a much wider, urgent and fundamental conversation about the future of our city: whose voices are heard, whose interests are represented, where the wealth generated here flows, and what alternative might exist to the business-as-usual model currently on the table. The debate about City Access scheme operating hours, exemptions, boundaries etc is necessary and will be intense. But let’s not get distracted from what lies behind.

I add to this blog weekly if there’s something important to report. Get these posts by email by adding your name to the list, using the form on this page.

Don’t forget a regularly updated list of local planning applications can be found on this page here.

Sam Davies

7 comments

  • I don’t understand how it can be considered fair to further penalise those who cannot afford to live within Cambridge.
    Not only do they have additional fuel/vehicle costs to get into work and (for example Addenbrookes, have parking charges) but they will be expected to pay extra just to get to work.
    Public transport just doesn’t match the need currently so how can it with thousands more being expected to use it? All the developments being built seem to discourage car ownership but public transport is again lacking. Perhaps allowing one company to provide most of the buses prevents fair price/service competition.
    Not only will all this affect shopper numbers but worker numbers for those shops and lead to further closures to an already dwindling town centre.
    There are other towns and cities close enough to travel to that can seem more welcoming to all.

  • The city council could, and I’d argue, should, withdraw it’s support for, and participation in, any further activity which contributes to the development of the new GCP local plan.

    Councillors, being the embodiment of the local authority, could choose to do this.

    Stephen Kelly and Robert Pollock might advise against that, but, as officers of the council, they are duty bound to implement its instructions.

    It was agreed and confirmed by the planning inspector at the Betjeman House appeal, that the 2018 local plan is current and up to date.

    All of the premises on which the growth discussed by Sam above, depend on the continued development of the new local plan.

    The new local plan is proposed to be effectively backdated to run from 2021-41.

    That is utterly wrong. It only serves to allow the developer lobby to push their growth agenda, on their terms.

    I believe all the employment land required by the 2018 LP, up until 2031, has been accounted for in applications and permissions.

    Currently, as seen in the Betjeman House appeal, the new local plan has little to no weight in planning decisions.
    It’s critical to understand that there will come a point, BEFORE it has been ratified and adopted, where it WILL be a consideration in planning applications.

    All those who object to the proposed congestion charge, more unneeded offices, the creation of a ‘business district’ along the Hills Rd Corridor, the perpetuation of the failure to provide the housing needed by residents, etc. should focus their energy on lobbying the council to withdraw from the new local plan process until the conversation discussed above has properly taken place.

  • Sam,
    I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Residents will have to pay within the city to subsidise cheap transport for those coming into and benefiting from the jobs in the city.
    Furthermore residents shouldn’t have to pay to leave the city.
    An unintended consequence may be residential parking in the park and rides if they need to commute out of the city, so a reverse ride and park!
    It is a disproportionate burden considering the residents are already significant contributors through council tax.
    It is also very narrow thinking about the future of residential wellbeing.
    Thanks Sam for all your hard work.

  • If you live within the zone, eg Cherry Hinton, I’m not sure what you’re actually meant to do. You need to take your car to plenty of places, eg the weekly food shop, because you need to put the bags in the car. If you took the bus, you’d only be able to buy what you can carry, which isn’t viable for a family shop. Ditto going to the tip, garden centre, B&Q, etc. Even trying to drive out of Cambridge gets you charged! And the bus service pretty much only takes you into the city centre. Want to go to a national trust place? A farm shop? Local restaurant? Charged for all of it. It will just make people move out of Cambridge. It’s expensive enough to live here as it is. Plus it will stop people spending money at local businesses. And if you live outside of Cambridge, this will hugely discourage you coming in. It will also discourage people from taking jobs in Cambridge. It seems no one’s thought this plan through.

  • I’m curious to know what the future of the ingoing section of the Guided Bus way between Addenbrookes and the Railway Station is. Closed since the sad deaths of cyclists, it is a monument to the bad decisions that slip through Cambridge Planning. No one had the thought that combining a cycle track so close to the bus route would have fatal consequences and now this overpriced stretch of concrete is lying fallow and the Guided Buses towards Cambridge now help to clog up the narrowed Hills Road. I have no faith in any decisions made or about to be made as the ideas hardly ever seem to join up logically.

  • Is there any provision for key workers, low pay and cost of living? My partner is a teacher, and £250 per month CC would be the final straw in terms of remaining in post. They couldn’t get on a bus with all the materials etc they take to work every day? In the interregnum, waiting for the funds to pay for improved public ttansport services you might see a lot of unintended consequences like this?

  • Dear Sam
    The carrot needs to come before the stick.
    Where will the busses go. The bus station is at capacity and Hills Road needs bus lanes.
    All the new developments have very poor shopping or medical provision. Travel is essential.
    Our public employees and low paid workers will desert Cambridge which will collapse the economy without these essential workers.
    A principle source of congestion appears to be caused by private schools which do not have effective travel plans and wide geographic spread of childrens’ homes. Mea Culpa
    I can remember when many shoppers outside Cambridge choose Peterborough for their big shop some years ago. This will recur.
    I suspect Cambridge house prices may collapse in the middle market and Ely and Royston house prices with facilities and rail connections will rise.

Sam Davies

Sam Davies was elected to Cambridge City Council in May 2021 as a representative for the Queen Edith's ward, and is the city's only independent councillor.
Read more about Sam here.

Get email updates from Sam

Subscribe

* indicates required

Contact Sam

Address
301 Hills Road, Cambridge

Email
hello@sam4qe.com